I recently made a purchase that improved the reliability of my home network—a Cisco Linksys EA3500 dual-band wireless router. The device itself has worked just as I hoped.

But shortly after my purchase, Cisco pushed a firmware update to this router that limited owners' ability to administer the devices ourselves. The update led me (and many others) to install an older version of the firmware in order to regain all the control we had in the first place. More on just how to do that in a bit. First let's explain what Cisco did, and why many people are upset.

When the firmware update (which also applied to the EA4500 and EA2700 router models) rolled out, attempting to connect to the browser's internal administrative Web interface brings the user instead to a signup page for the “Cisco Connect Cloud," as seen here:

The service basically replicates all the features router administrators already have, but moves them from your home network to Cisco’s cloud. The supposed benefit is that you can manage your router even when you’re not at home. I can’t imagine many circumstances in which I would need to do that; connecting my router’s administration features to a Web account also seems like a needless security risk (albeit a small one).

In exchange for the convenience of Connect Cloud, you have to agree to some pretty onerous terms. In short, Cisco would really hate it if you use the Web to view porn or download copyrighted files without paying for them.

You agree not to use or permit the use of the Service: (i) to invade another's privacy; (ii) for obscene, pornographic, or offensive purposes; (iii) to infringe another's rights, including but not limited to any intellectual property rights; (iv) to upload, email or otherwise transmit or make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, spam, junk mail or any other form of solicitation; (v) to transmit or otherwise make available any code or virus, or perform any activity, that could harm or interfere with any device, software, network or service (including this Service); or (vi) to violate, or encourage any conduct that would violate any applicable law or regulation or give rise to civil or criminal liability.

While we are not responsible for any content or data that you choose to access or otherwise use in connection with the Service, we reserve the right to take such action as we (i) deem necessary or (ii) are otherwise required to take by a third party or court of competent jurisdiction, in each case in relation to your access or use or misuse of such content or data. Such action may include, without limitation, discontinuing your use of the Service immediately without prior notice to you, and without refund or compensation to you.

These terms of service have sparked a bit of an uproar among Cisco customers—you can get a sampling of the outrage among fellow Ars readers in the forums. A lot of that outrage is focused on privacy concerns. ExtremeTech found that Cisco has deleted a portion of a privacy statement that said Cisco would keep track of Connect Cloud customers’ “network traffic” and “Internet history."

I e-mailed Cisco public relations reps to ask how Cisco would know if anyone is using its cloud service for pornographic purposes or to infringe intellectual property rights, and also whether Connect Cloud keeps a record of everything its users do on the Internet, but haven't gotten a response yet. Cisco did previously weigh in with a blog post saying “Cisco Connect Cloud does not actively track, collect or store personal info or usage data for any other purposes, nor is it transmitted to third parties.”

Perhaps “actively” means Cisco only does the tracking sometimes. If no tracking occurs at all, why do the terms of service give Cisco the right to penalize customers for porn- and copyright-related offenses?

Some have claimed Cisco will “transform your router into a useless brick” if your porn habits violate the cloud service’s conditions. I don’t read the terms that way. Instead, the terms indicate to me that Cisco would discontinue a user’s right to use the cloud service, while still allowing you to use the router you bought and paid for.

Rolling back your firmware, ditching Connect Cloud

I followed the instructions last night and was able to regain access to the traditional Web interface for managing my router.

The first step is downloading the earlier version of the firmware. Next, you disconnect the Ethernet cable from the router’s Internet port. That’s because if your computer is online, navigating to 192.168.1.1 takes you to the Connect Cloud signup page. Severing the Internet connection brings you to a different page that provides administration access with your router’s password.

At this point, you can use the previously downloaded file to roll the router’s firmware back to the prior version. The router reboots, and once you plug the Ethernet cable back in you’re online, and going to 192.168.1.1 gives you the traditional Web interface—no cloud service account required.

The final step is to uncheck the automatic upgrade option. Now your router won’t automatically receive firmware updates. You could try the third-party firmware DD-WRT, but it seems to be supported on the Linksys EA2700 but not the other two models affected by the recent update.

Not receiving firmware updates isn’t ideal, of course. There is one way around this without signing up for the cloud service, though. Even with the latest firmware, you can manage your router without a Connect Cloud account by using the software that comes with a Cisco router. However, this software only includes the most basic options—for anything advanced, it redirects you to 192.168.1.1, which in turn redirects you to the Cisco Connect Cloud if you haven’t rolled back your firmware.

There’s also a phone app called Cisco Connect Express that works on your home network without a cloud account. That app is still available for now, but Cisco is pushing a new phone app that requires the cloud account.

That Cisco blog post we mentioned said the company is developing an updated version of the opt-out process for automatic updates to make it clearer that customers have more options than simply creating a Connect Cloud account.

Cisco is promising that Connect Cloud will offer many new conveniences, like adding devices to your home network with a tap of a button. I’ve never had any trouble adding devices to my home network in the first place, though, so for now I’m sticking with the older firmware.

Promoted Comments

Okay, so Cisco goes on the list with Apple and Sony, of tech companies I won't deal with.

Clearly some people read the "agreement" a little more generously than the writer. I certainly don't, and I don't see how a router manufacturer sees this area as its responsibility. It sells hardware, and after that is not involved.

If it does provide a software platform to make its hardware "easier to use" (extremely debatable in this context), then it needs to make sure that platform is properly designed in order to cover Cisco. That doesn't mean telling its users what their traffic is allowed to be, even if it does want to be an ISP of sorts here.

It also doesn't mean writing your "agreement" in such a way that you imply the possibility of spying on your users.

Cisco has proven the statement I made when Sony won the OtherOS lawsuit:

"The lesson everyone should take from this is: you don't own something which requires a network connection and can be updated via the network."

In my opinion, this pretty much sums it up. The TOS don't scare me too much, here. What is more annoying is that the cloud is considered the new standard configuration utility. I personally consider a cloud utility in this case a liability, not an asset. If the router had an optional cloud interface, that would be great. I would consider that a very interesting capability that I would just choose not to use, since I want my LAN to be independent of the cloud. But, this situation would seem to indicate that, going forward, this is the new norm for this router.

I realize, as a purchaser of the router, I'm not entitled to updates to the firmware. But, much like my PS3, I've just been given one too many reasons not to consider purchasing this equipment again. Will their next router just come with this as the baseline firmware? I know I would not buy such a router. Similarly, I also will not be buying a PS4.

I've had my SkyDrive account deactivated twice because I violated terms of service. The first time was indeed a violation but I had the photo set as private and only shared a link with one person. So, why the hell were my photos monitored? Is it because I shared a link or does everything get reviewed even if it's supposedly private? The second time, I again set the photos as private and shared a link , but this time there was no violation. So, I challenged the deactivation and received an email saying that my account appeared to be active. I log back in and, magically, it had been reactivated.

I figure that Microsoft, like Facebook, has a team of people in India whose job it is to manually review all photos and files posted to SkyDrive.

Cisco, you have joined my list of companies I will not purchase from. I know everyone is REALLY interested in my list, so here it is: Sony, EA, Ubisoft, Apple, Cisco, anything RIAA or MPAA related.

I have an E2000 router right now so I don't have to worry about this (for now, they could decide to change this). You can keep an older firmware, but this means you won't get any bug fixes or security updates if issues are found.

This is a really stupid idea. I have purposely disabled accessing the router from the outside world because I don't want this. There is zero need to have my router part of some stupid cloud service.

This trend of having to go through an http online portal to manage your router seems to be growing (and I hate it).

My gf's dad bought her a netgear router for her apt. He didn't set it up with a password, though (at an apt complex of all things ..yeah, sure, let's just create an open network. what could go wrong?!)

I tried hopping into it using the IP addy trick... didn't work. She gave me the user manual. Turns out you have to go to http://somenetgearaddy.com in order to access your router.

W....T...F....?

So, let me get this straight. In order to alter the settings on my router, which I want to be secure, I first have to go to an unsecure http web-site? Huh?!

Maybe the addy is actually just the IP going right to the router, and not to some phone-home netgear web-site? Am I incorrect in my assumption?

The problem I see with having to go through some vendor's web-site to setup your router is ... what if the vendor goes out of business? What if that web-site is shut down? How do you work on your router then...the thirdparty portal is down...sorry, you're screwed.

Cisco, you have joined my list of companies I will not purchase from. I know everyone is REALLY interested in my list, so here it is: Sony, EA, Ubisoft, Apple, Cisco, anything RIAA or MPAA related.

I have an E2000 router right now so I don't have to worry about this (for now, they could decide to change this). You can keep an older firmware, but this means you won't get any bug fixes or security updates if issues are found.

This is a really stupid idea. I have purposely disabled accessing the router from the outside world because I don't want this. There is zero need to have my router part of some stupid cloud service.

You don't purchase from EA or UbiSoft either? I was thinking I might be the only one that refused to purchase their products, I found out there are plenty more, now I find another.

So, let me get this straight. In order to alter the settings on my router, which I want to be secure, I first have to go to an unsecure http web-site? Huh?!

Maybe the addy is actually just the IP going right to the router, and not to some phone-home netgear web-site? Am I incorrect in my assumption?

Again, am I wrong in this assumption? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think you have it right in the second section from your quote (after I've edited it anyway). I actually think it's a clever approach to helping clueless people calling tech support. The IP clueless really have trouble with typing in numeric addresses - they're used to words. From my experience, the routers dns server is just serving up the inside address of the router. Now, I can see this causing potential problems if someone doesn't use their router for DNS - but in the grand scheme of things I suspect they solve more problems than they cause with this approach.

If it was an optional feature and not encumbered by an abusive ToS, I'd be provisionally in favor of it. Not as something I'd enable on my router; but as a way to reduce the likelihood of having to do on site networking support for non-technical family members.

This is fine by me. People should not be looking at porn or stealing unlicensed content. They should also stop all streaming of unlicensed works too, and prohibit torrents, peer-to-peer, TOR, and any other proxy based service which intentionally on unintentionally enables or facilitates those who intend to violate the law or codes of moral conduct from engaging in such activity. It is high time that the vendors of data communication hardware take a united stand and as a coalition of businesses built on family values, quality morals, and lawful conduct, snub out these despicable acts permanently, at the transport level. Once all the porn, gambling, file sharing ,and content streaming sites have been shut down, the quality of family life, the institution of marriage, the birth rate, and family values shall be restored, and society shall reap the benefits.

I am not a bible thumper, and see these actions as a means to improve the quality of society, regardless of your race, religion, or sexual persuasion. You may think this action by Cisco is one big joke, but it is NOT!!!! And, for those who believe this is an invasion of privacy and their rights, then perhaps they might want to look at where they have landed due to these rights. Someone has to reign us in from the mess we have created.

I suspect that this is the beginning of a trend, and we can expect to see more of this type of action being taken as more companies put their foot down and take responsible actions to clean up this cesspool that we all call the Internet.

I support Cisco in their efforts to regain a safe and moral Internet community.

Corporations are the new government. Not quite what Orwell envisioned, but close, and about as bad.

PS3 updates that alter your hardware (if its behavior is altered, then for all intents and purposes the hardware has been altered - AFTER you paid for it for the way it was BEFORE) as far as I am concerned is straightforward theft.

In the 21st millenium, Update as a verb means "steal", as a noun it means "theft" and as an adjective it means "stolen".

We are coming to a new age in computers: The dumbfication era. Devices being limited in functionality (they know what is best for you), one-size-fits-all, and now. This seems like the natural progression.

I'm glad I bought Netgear instead. I was considering a Cisco router when the Belkin I picked up bricked within minutes of installation. (Not that I haven't bought a lemon or two from Netgear before, mainly because Belkin's tech support is horrid. Like a cable company: if you're on hold longer than 5 minutes, they hang up on you to save on their own phone bills.)

I will keep this in mind when people ask me what router to get for their homes.

In the TOS they reserve the right to update you even if you have auto-update disabled."In some cases, in order to provide an optimal experience on your home network, some updates may still be automatically applied, regardless of the auto-update setting."http://www.cisco.com/web/siteassets/leg ... _supp.html - Last sentence in the TOS

Who are they to decide what "an optimal experience on your home network" is? That should be up to the individual owner to decide.The concept is simple, I buy something then I own it and I get to decide. Sure, maybe offer something that some people may want to use, thats ok, but it should not be forced on you.

On the other hand, how many people in this same forum complain about the luddites out there running old, insecure versions of Windows, Firefox, whatever and spreading malware? The mandatory update is probably for security patches, maybe even the kind that can disable WPS for real. Something to consider, anyway. That said, what the fuck is the point of moving the control panel from the local device to the web over a remote connection? It's pointless. And I hope that whatever crippled local options are left are sufficient to get you back on the internet if something cocks up and you can't connect to the cloud service.

This is fine by me. People should not be looking at porn or stealing unlicensed content. They should also stop all streaming of unlicensed works too, and prohibit torrents, peer-to-peer, TOR, and any other proxy based service which intentionally on unintentionally enables or facilitates those who intend to violate the law or codes of moral conduct from engaging in such activity. It is high time that the vendors of data communication hardware take a united stand and as a coalition of businesses built on family values, quality morals, and lawful conduct, snub out these despicable acts permanently, at the transport level. Once all the porn, gambling, file sharing ,and content streaming sites have been shut down, the quality of family life, the institution of marriage, the birth rate, and family values shall be restored, and society shall reap the benefits.

I am not a bible thumper, and see these actions as a means to improve the quality of society, regardless of your race, religion, or sexual persuasion. You may think this action by Cisco is one big joke, but it is NOT!!!! And, for those who believe this is an invasion of privacy and their rights, then perhaps they might want to look at where they have landed due to these rights. Someone has to reign us in from the mess we have created.

I suspect that this is the beginning of a trend, and we can expect to see more of this type of action being taken as more companies put their foot down and take responsible actions to clean up this cesspool that we all call the Internet.

I support Cisco in their efforts to regain a safe and moral Internet community.

Ha ha ha ha ha... Yeah right..... as if.

Entertaining, but I feel Cisco drafted those terms (via lawyers) without considering the implications to regular users (the "I don't host kiddie porn, but I do stare at the Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated" kinda guy).

Regardless, pornography is such a vague and varied term that any user could violate those terms for that reason. (Girlfriend sent you a photo of her in a bikini? Yup, you just downloaded porn you sicko.) It should never have been in the terms in the first place.

In the TOS they reserve the right to update you even if you have auto-update disabled."In some cases, in order to provide an optimal experience on your home network, some updates may still be automatically applied, regardless of the auto-update setting."http://www.cisco.com/web/siteassets/leg ... _supp.html - Last sentence in the TOS

Who are they to decide what "an optimal experience on your home network" is? That should be up to the individual owner to decide.The concept is simple, I buy something then I own it and I get to decide. Sure, maybe offer something that some people may want to use, thats ok, but it should not be forced on you.

On the other hand, how many people in this same forum complain about the luddites out there running old, insecure versions of Windows, Firefox, whatever and spreading malware? The mandatory update is probably for security patches, maybe even the kind that can disable WPS for real. Something to consider, anyway. That said, what the fuck is the point of moving the control panel from the local device to the web over a remote connection? It's pointless. And I hope that whatever crippled local options are left are sufficient to get you back on the internet if something cocks up and you can't connect to the cloud service.

That's also scary... "thanks for downloading the older firmware, but we're going to put you back onto Cloud Connect. If you don't like it (since it'll clearly be months past your return policy when this happens) you can go buy something else. Have a nice day!"

I think the only real issue here is Cisco thinking that we all might want to stuff all our Administrator level access onto the Cloud and allow remote access to our routers for all and sundry.

Personally, I am a firm believer in keeping auto-updates off, remote admin off and well, pretty much anything that makes my router less secure - OFF. Just my two cents.

The real issue is corporations wording their terms and services to basically state that they can do anything to your internet service, your data, machines, house, 1st born daughter, and pets that they like, and by touching the box in the store before purchase, you have no rights to do anything.

And every year, the verbiage gets more and more aggressive. You know what also disclaims lawsuits? "USE OF THIS DEVICE, SOFTWARE AND ALL ASSOCIATED SERVICES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "PRODUCT") ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS, MANUFACTURERS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCT OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE PRODUCT."

Yes, the MIT License. Basically says "Use it; you can't sue us." Nothing's essentially different; past the return policy of the store, there's little chance of a company sending you a replacement product under warranty service anyways. (I can count the number of times a company sat on a claim for months and then sent me electronics back unrepaired with the response of "warranty expired" mere days after it does expire, and still run out of fingers to count with.)

And I'm not outraged at all. It's been happening so often, I call it "constant disgust". This is the norm of what to expect from any company.

So I counted maybe 10 total people who actually understood what the TOS was about -- pretty surprising.

The TOS is obviously for the use of the "cloud service" -- otherwise known as the new admin interface.

They don't want you to abuse the admin interface service by uploading obscene/copyrighted materials. It's not immediately clear how you might do such a thing, but the TOS is also obviously just a somewhat generic "cloud service" TOS.

They're not trying to control your internet connection -- just trying to protect themselves and the service they host.

For the record, I do find the major change in functionality via auto-update to be obnoxious and I'd be very annoyed if I owned a cisco router, but the TOS bit seems like a non-issue.

So I counted maybe 10 total people who actually understood what the TOS was about -- pretty surprising.

The TOS is obviously for the use of the "cloud service" -- otherwise known as the new admin interface.

They don't want you to abuse the admin interface service by uploading obscene/copyrighted materials. It's not immediately clear how you might do such a thing, but the TOS is also obviously just a somewhat generic "cloud service" TOS.

They're not trying to control your internet connection -- just trying to protect themselves and the service they host.

For the record, I do find the major change in functionality via auto-update to be obnoxious and I'd be very annoyed if I owned a cisco router, but the TOS bit seems like a non-issue.

-- Cloud Connect active by default.-- Disabling it takes a firmware update (vis a vis rolling it back to an older version), something mainstream users won't undergo.-- For those who do roll back the firmware to disable Cloud Connect, Cisco has capability to force a firmware update (sure, for security patches and QOS, right) regardless of your settings to ignore them. This means it doesn't really matter if you object to the TOS or not.

Yeah, non-issue. You're right.

I'm not calling for "router freedom" or joining the Free Software Foundation or anything (Stallman kind of scares me to be honest) but parts of this is disingenuous enough for a Cisco higher-up to one day say out loud "tell me where it says we can't do this" and forces routers to use Cloud Connect.

I think the only real issue here is Cisco thinking that we all might want to stuff all our Administrator level access onto the Cloud and allow remote access to our routers for all and sundry.

Personally, I am a firm believer in keeping auto-updates off, remote admin off and well, pretty much anything that makes my router less secure - OFF. Just my two cents.

To understand the "real issue here" as the uproar began, understand that the original TOS they posted included giving themselves full access to any internet usage history that went through the router (so assumedly all of your internet history).

You can find the discussion and quotes of the original TOS terms in the cisco home forums in the wireless routers section.

A couple days after posting it, they deleted the whole paragraph in the TOS about being able to retrieve your internet usage history. But it shows you what they were thinking when they made this happen, and why this whole thing is drawing ire.

Welp, looks like about 15 years of using Linksys/Cisco home Internet routers will come to a crashing close for this consumer. I currently have the Linksys E2000 but as it is getting a bit long in the tooth now I was looking to upgrade to the EA2700. No longer.

I work in enterprise systems engineering and my firm is a Cisco Gold partner. We have seen a very steep decline in Cisco's software and ToS, even at the enterprise level, over the last six months or so. To see this trickle down to the consumer space is...well...disappointing to put it lightly.

I guess I have to explain the whole 1st amendment thing. If you're a company, you can generally make whatever policies you want. If Cisco decided to go Christian fundamentalist and sold routers that blocked porn, fine, they can do that. Private association is protected.

The problem here is that we already own the product, and they forced new TOS where they have targeted protected speech (legal pornography). Imagine the uproar if they had picked on another form of protected speech such as political or religious speech--say, no content that supports Romney is allowed; or no content that questions the divinity of Jesus.

Well, you have to remember what helps power the Great Wall of China's network. Cisco routers and switches. Cisco has had this technology for years, and now they have the guts to use that very same technology to spy on anyone who uses their routers.

So I counted maybe 10 total people who actually understood what the TOS was about -- pretty surprising.

The TOS is obviously for the use of the "cloud service" -- otherwise known as the new admin interface.

They don't want you to abuse the admin interface service by uploading obscene/copyrighted materials. It's not immediately clear how you might do such a thing, but the TOS is also obviously just a somewhat generic "cloud service" TOS.

They're not trying to control your internet connection -- just trying to protect themselves and the service they host.

For the record, I do find the major change in functionality via auto-update to be obnoxious and I'd be very annoyed if I owned a cisco router, but the TOS bit seems like a non-issue.

Is it not somehow disengenous though that you can't get the latest firmware update for maintaining the router via auto update without having your arm twisted to get into the "cloud"?

Sure they may very well be trying to protect their service but, regardless of the TOS wording, in deed they are providing a firmware update trying to force use of the "cloud" service to begin with. It is an issue that they force a service upon you via auto update, especially since they do not provide an alternative choice to not use the service. Its user equipment, bought and paid for by the user and owned by the user, the user should be able to control what they purchase yet Cisco is taking away the user control by forcing people to use a service and by further not providing a "non-service" alternative to not use the "service" for the same update via auto update. How is it protecting the "service" if you force people to use it?

This trend of having to go through an http online portal to manage your router seems to be growing (and I hate it).

My gf's dad bought her a netgear router for her apt. He didn't set it up with a password, though (at an apt complex of all things ..yeah, sure, let's just create an open network. what could go wrong?!)

I tried hopping into it using the IP addy trick... didn't work. She gave me the user manual. Turns out you have to go to http://somenetgearaddy.com in order to access your router.

W....T...F....?

So, let me get this straight. In order to alter the settings on my router, which I want to be secure, I first have to go to an unsecure http web-site? Huh?!

Maybe the addy is actually just the IP going right to the router, and not to some phone-home netgear web-site? Am I incorrect in my assumption?

The problem I see with having to go through some vendor's web-site to setup your router is ... what if the vendor goes out of business? What if that web-site is shut down? How do you work on your router then...the thirdparty portal is down...sorry, you're screwed.

Again, am I wrong in this assumption? Inquiring minds want to know.

The router's built-in DNS relay intercepts a request for routerlogin.net and responds with the router's internal IP, typically 192.168.1.1 out of the box. Nothing sinister here. You don't actually leave your own network to set it up.

You can also manually enter 'basic.htm' as the page name to skip the wizard.

1. It was a completely new product forced on people, without their knowledge or consent.

2. No benefit to have your router config stored on Cisco's servers when you can remotely manage already.

3. Awful TOS/EULA purports [going from the first version because they still maintain they can change terms at their discretion] to give authority for Cisco to spy on everything you do online and then monetize it.

4. Awful TOS/EULA then suggests that users have agreed not to use services--without defining what those services are...I'd assume my router's service is to forward packets and block unwanted connections, basically, y'know, enabling networked communication--for porn or copyrighted material. The one is protected speech, and the other is not Cisco's concern.

tl;dr Cisco abused their auto-update to push a new product on people, and worse, a new TOS basically signing away all rights to privacy. And it doesn't make it alright because half of the other megacorps of the world are trying to do the same thing.

I own a refurbished E2000 and an older WRT54GS, and loaded both with DD-WRT for more robust options and administration tools, in addition to making it easier to setup both as a bridge so I could hard line connect my PS3 to my home network and Internet connection, as the WiFi in the PS3 leaves much to be desired (85% signal strength but you're giving me less than 3Mbps of Internet speed on a 20Mbps connection? To the hard line with you!).

Other than general consumers like my parents, I'm not sure why someone with the technical know-how wouldn't run something like DD-WRT on their network hardware.

I don't care if their terms were technically indicating that torrents and pornographic material weren't to be sent over their cloud network or whatever, I don't want my router configuration in the cloud.

The router's built-in DNS relay intercepts a request for routerlogin.net and responds with the router's internal IP, typically 192.168.1.1 out of the box. Nothing sinister here. You don't actually leave your own network to set it up.

You can also manually enter 'basic.htm' as the page name to skip the wizard.

It's all in the docs really.

What does this have to do with the fact that auto-update, as I understand it, is "on" by default, and then would receive the cloud update?

If I can I can still reach all the settings by non-routeable IP, then there is less to the story. Again, my understanding is that this is no longer the case after the update.

The router's built-in DNS relay intercepts a request for routerlogin.net and responds with the router's internal IP, typically 192.168.1.1 out of the box. Nothing sinister here. You don't actually leave your own network to set it up.

You can also manually enter 'basic.htm' as the page name to skip the wizard.

It's all in the docs really.

What does this have to do with the fact that auto-update, as I understand it, is "on" by default, and then would receive the cloud update?

If I can I can still reach all the settings by non-routeable IP, then there is less to the story. Again, my understanding is that this is no longer the case after the update.

He's responding to a question about a Netgear router, not the Cisco Linksys ones discussed in the article...

What confuses the hell out of me is how Cisco could possibly care about whether or not its users are jacking off. I can understand their anti-piracy push but I don't like that they can just watch whatever you look at.

Who in the world needs cloud setup of the router? I doubt I'd need to configure it if I'm not at home and therefore not using it. Cisco routers are going to be pieces of shit with or without the ability to set it up while you are somewhere else.

What confuses the hell out of me is how Cisco could possibly care about whether or not its users are jacking off. I can understand their anti-piracy push but I don't like that they can just watch whatever you look at.

Are ALL of you guys, author included, trolling? It's hard to believe so many Arsians can't get that this is a boilerplate TOS that was only meant to apply to their cloud admin console, not your internet connection.

I'm beginning to think it's the greatest piece of coordinated trolling of all time. If so, bravo, bravo.

Are ALL of you guys, author included, trolling? It's hard to believe so many Arsians can't get that this is a boilerplate TOS that was only meant to apply to their cloud admin console, not your internet connection.

I'm beginning to think it's the greatest piece of coordinated trolling of all time. If so, bravo, bravo.

It's hard to believe some people don't see a problem with what Cisco did. They disguised some sort of new cloud software as an automatic firmware update, then denied people access to their own hardware unless they created an account which required agreeing to an extremely broad EULA/TOS.

Let's turn this around. After being so sneaky, why would you assume they weren't interested in harvesting all your information? This clearly is a new product for them. They're a business, we have to assume they figure they'll make money off of it. We know data harvesting is a very profitable business model (see a couple little companies called Google and Facebook). Now, according to your thinking, this is so patently inconceivable most of us must just be doing this for the lulz?

Your post seems far more like trolling as it calls our sincerity into doubt about something pretty obviously bad to many people. Alternatively, maybe your post is just as sincere as ours but you have no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT: BTW, I don't think you are trolling, and you're probably even correct about Cisco's motivation. Nonetheless, since it's hard to really know what the heck they intended I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Are ALL of you guys, author included, trolling? It's hard to believe so many Arsians can't get that this is a boilerplate TOS that was only meant to apply to their cloud admin console, not your internet connection.

I'm beginning to think it's the greatest piece of coordinated trolling of all time. If so, bravo, bravo.

It's hard to believe some people don't see a problem with what Cisco did. They disguised some sort of new cloud software as an automatic firmware update, then denied people access to their own hardware unless they created an account which required agreeing to an extremely broad EULA/TOS.

Can you explain how "you can't use our servers for porn or pirated material" is unreasonable or "extremely broad"?

For me the main issue is I would need to go to some website to configure the device. Absurd! If my internet connection is down (which on comcast happens far too often) I'd be unable to change configuration settings on my home network. Complete non-starter. I'm glad I don't (and now won't) own one of those routers.